Bradley-Prosser confrontation gets even sillier

posted at 1:25 pm on June 28, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Christian Schneider brings us the latest news from the scuffle between Wisconsin state Supreme Court justices David Prosser and Ann Walsh Bradley, which has taken on more of the characteristics of a Jerry Springer episode than a First Monday in October vibe. According to more sources, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson involved law enforcement, which got uninvolved as soon as possible in the claims and counterclaims, a path open to them since Bradley didn’t choose to file charges. Instead, Schneider reports that sources believe Bradley and Abrahamson chose to leak the story to a left-wing website in order to embarrass Prosser in retaliation:

On Monday night, Bradley called Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs to talk to him about the incident. On the morning of Wednesday, June 15, Tubbs joined the justices in a closed-door meeting, where he discussed “issues relating to workplace violence.”

During the meeting, Chief Justice Abrahamson actually reenacted the incident on Chief Tubbs — no doubt an amusing sight, as the diminutive Abrahamson mimicked choking the tall, portly police chief. During her demonstration, Abrahamson emphasized that Prosser had exerted “pressure” on Bradley’s throat.

“There was no pressure,” interrupted the justice who had initially broken up the incident between Bradley and Prosser. “That’s only because you broke us apart,” shot back Bradley. This exchange led several meeting attendees to believe Bradley was making up the charge, as they took her rejoinder as an admission that there was no pressure applied to her neck.

Bradley and Abrahamson wanted to force Prosser into taking anger-management training. However, they failed to convince their fellow jurists, who wondered how they would go about forcing any colleague to attend any kind of remedial counseling, regardless of the circumstances. Some considered it a “demeaning” demand, considering that Prosser didn’t do anything wrong in the first place.

Bradley could have filed a criminal complaint. To date, she has not chosen to do so, but that may be because a criminal complaint could open up a bigger can of worms. Prosser would have his due-process rights, including taking depositions, evidentiary hearings, and the like. That might get rather strange, since those activities would have to take place in the same Wisconsin courts that these justices oversee. Who gets to determine whether the court handles the case properly?

This is what happens … When Justices Go Wild! It’s a great idea for a new reality show, don’t you think?

Schneider posits that Bradley and Abrahamson didn’t think they could win in a criminal complaint or a demand for a restraining order (which would make Supreme Court sessions rather difficult), and so chose to leak the story to political allies in order to pay back Prosser:

Instead, the story was leaked to the George Soros–funded Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, who used three anonymous sources to back up Bradley’s story. There were six justices present at the time of the incident, four of whom would be more likely to back Prosser’s version of the story. That leaves Abrahamson and Bradley as the only two remaining justices present. One source present speculated the third source may have been Bradley’s law clerk, who likely didn’t actually see the confrontation but may have head Bradley shout “I was choked.” …

Furthermore, sources unanimously believed that it was Shirley Abrahamson who has been the impetus behind the story, managing the press operation from behind the scenes. Justices had been working together regularly since the incident without any signs of rancor until Abrahamson decided to make this an issue, sources believe.

Sounds like Wisconsin needs to clean house in its Supreme Court. Rather than have the courts get involved, the state legislature should start probing this case to determine exactly what happened, and whether the Chief Justice has conducted a leak campaign against Prosser as payback. I’d say at least one resignation is due in this case — and maybe a few of them, whatever happened. It’s doubtful that Wisconsin’s citizens can put much confidence in a court that can’t behave itself in a mature and professional manner, and especially one where such poisonous partisan and personal politics are in play.

Otherwise, we can look forward to even more updates from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, where in place of decisions and precedents, we can find out who won’t stop looking at whom, the compliance status of Exies-No-Erasies, and who ate the last Ding Dong in the cupboard.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

If there were any truth whatsoever, the mainstream media would have crucified Prosser like rabid dogs. This is not the first time Bradley has exposed her rage. Rage is inherent in the souls of liberals and their inability to contain it is common.

Once again two leftwing nutjobs remove all doubt that liberalism is truly a mental disorder. The saddest part is they are Supreme Court Justices and legislate from the bench. When Justices are this obviously fanatical, they are a threat to those they disagree with. Interpreting the law with such an obsessive bias is a threat to all Americans.

volsense on June 28, 2011 at 3:27 PM

At one point, every single member of the (all-Democrat) Florida Supreme Court tried to use Judicial Activism to steal the 2000 Presidential Election.

None of them paid any legal or political price for doing so. All who chose to run again were re-elected, and 3 of them are still on that High Court. All 3 are (surprise) Democrats, and 2 are women.

Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney, who is investigating allegations that state Supreme Court Justice David Prosser put his hands around a fellow justice’s neck during an argument earlier this month, had endorsed Prosser’s challenger in the court race earlier this year.

Mahoney, a Democrat, endorsed Prosser’s opponent JoAnne Kloppenburg, an assistant attorney general, in the April election. That has drawn criticism from some conservatives, who question whether he has a conflict of interest in the matter.

-snip-

Mahoney had also endorsed Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, a close Bradley ally.

This is a classic example of liberal transferring their only tendencies on others. Demanding that Prosser take an anger management course shows that they needed it most and are only transferring their out of control behavior on an innocent party. How about a court order for Bradley and Abrahamson to take a course in telling the truth and confidentiality?

JS OnLine is now also belatedly reporting that Sheriff Mahoney and Kloppenburg shared Melissa Mulliken as a campaign manager.

Hilarious comment over there, too.

I see “the politics of personal destruction” has been put to work against Bradley and Abrahamson. No obstacles are allowed in Prosser’s way. I wonder what the equivalent of 7,200 extra votes pulled from a computer will be, this time. A surprise eyewitness, perhaps, whom no-one else saw in the room?

“There was no pressure,” interrupted the justice who had initially broken up the incident between Bradley and Prosser.

I wonder whether “the justice who had initially broken up the incident” was male or female. Did he/she break them up by stepping between them, or trying to pull either Bradley or Prosser backward from behind?

One witness said that Bradley allegedly started the incident by rushing at Prosser with her fists raised. A talk-show host this afternoon commented that if a man (such as Prosser) is attacked unexpectedly by a woman (such as Bradley), he would tend to push her away by the shoulders, in order to avoid any insinuation that he had groped her breasts. If Bradley had narrow shoulders, or Prosser had to react quickly, he might have pushed her neck briefly by accident.

It does seem amazing that men and women who will be deciding the legal fate of accused criminals in Wisconsin may be themselves guilty of assault, instead of settling their differences by deliberative verbal arguments. If it was indeed Bradley who attacked Prosser, it is also amazing that a woman responsible for deciding legal cases could physically attack a fellow Justice, then hide behind the “big bad man attacking a poor innocent woman” meme if the man defends himself.

Just as a joke I posted a comment on an Ann Althouse thread suggesting that Kloppenburg might have been the third source in the original Bill Leuders story. . . jeez, now I’m not so sure! Maybe I got it right in spite of myself!

Here’s a question for you, Steve. I cannot for the life of me figure out what possible jurisdiction a county sheriff would have in “investigating” a matter concerning the possibility of charges being filed with respect to sitting members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, regardless of the fact that the incident took place in Dane County.

Why would Chief Tubbs (who at least arguably had enforcement jurisdiction within the capitol complex) passing it on to the County Sheriff, rather than the Attorney General’s Office? I can certainly understand why he would want it off his plate, pronto. But why would he give it to Sheriff Mahoney?

Posters on LI said the county sheriffs are full-fledged LEOs in WI, which I understand. But still it seems odd that a county sheriff would be investigating a matter arising within the chambers of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Why not the AGs Office? Could the AG supersede the Sheriff’s authority in WI?

Do you suppose that Abrahamson (or Bradley) suggested that course of action to him (Tubbs) as they would have more control over the Sheriff?

If it was indeed Bradley who attacked Prosser, it is also amazing that a woman responsible for deciding legal cases could physically attack a fellow Justice, then hide behind the “big bad man attacking a poor innocent woman” meme if the man defends himself.
Steve Z on June 28, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Lets see hum.
Person “A” Claims Person “B” attacked her.
Person “A” does not want to press charges against Person “B”.
Instead Person “A” leaks this story to an extreme left wing web site.
This leaves the accusation to hang like a cloud over Person “B”.

This didn’t work for Weiner, it shouldn’t work for Bradley?
I wonder if the extreme left wing web site have anything in common, other than being paid for by Soros?

Whichever of the justices are at fault (I have my suspicions), they are acting juvenile, and need to brush up on their ethics rules.

Workplace civility can be achieved. I used to be a law clerk at my state’s supreme court, where some of the justices had run against each other and probably didn’t like each other very much. But they acted professionally, even out of the public’s view.